Gordon is where I got a DMin but they have a lot of offerings. I would check out their Shoemaker Center or talk with Steve Macchia who works at the Pierce Center for Disciple Building.
Alex, that's a great question and one that I'm glad you're getting the opportunity to wrestle with. Maybe the first thing that we should look at is defining our terms. What do you mean when you use the phrase "receive the Holy Spirit"? There is, shall we say, a lot of freight in that truck. It's a phrase that not only appears in Scripture but has taken on nuances of meaning from various theological traditions...pentecostalism, etc., as well as specific meanings in more liturgical traditions. So to unload the truck a bit, what's the particular understanding of that phrase that you're wrestling with?
In terms of the primary purpose of the Holy Spirit, that's another important discussion. I guess off the bat I've been helped by Max Ander's illustration of the spotlights that ring the Washington Monument. The spotlights do not draw attention to themselves but to the monument. In the same way the Spirit is "the shy member of the Trinity", tending to draw attention not to himself but to the work and the person of Christ. Christ says that "he will take what is mine and make it known to you".
It is a question of what "kind" of Christ we are presenting, but do you think that it's equally about the *kind of knowledge* of this Christ that we are after? What, after all, is a Biblical view of knowing? It isn't just an abstract knowledge, but a wholistic knowing that engages the whole person. James 2...James writes "you believe that there is one God...Good! Even the demons believe that and shudder".
I think of two sermons of Jonathan Edwards where he talks about the distinction between types of knowing. In the one "True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils", on this verse, he notes that the devil has a very extensive knowledge of the subject of theology, becuase he was educated in the best theological seminary in the universe, the seventh heaven. As one writer puts it "he is well aware of Jesus in his capacity as the savior of humankind and thus aqauinted with the whole plan of redemption. He is well informed of the affairs of the world beyond and a remarkable exegete of the Holy Scriptures" Edwards is riffing here, but he makes his point. "the devil is orthodox, he belives in the true scheme of doctrine, he is no Deist, Socinian, Arian, Pelagian or Antinomian, the articles of his faith are all sound, and in them he is throughly established." But this knowledge burns him, he hates it and is opposed to it.
Contrast this with the other type of knowing that Edwards talks about in "A Divine and Supernatural Light" and a few other places. He says "there is a difference between having an opinion that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of the loviness and beauty of that holiness and grace. There is a difference between having a rational judgement that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness. A man may have the former that knows not how honey tastes, but a man can't have the latter unless he has an idea of the taste of honey in his mind...there are two kinds of knowledge of the things of divinity, speculative and practical, or in other terms, natural and spiritual. The former remains only in the head. No other facutly but the understanding is concerned in it. It consists in having a rational knowledge of the things of religion, without any special illumination of the Spirit of God. The latter rests not entirely in the head, or in the speculative ideas of things, but the heart is concerned in it, and it principally consists in the "sense of the heart". The mere intellect, without the heart, the will or the inclination is not the seat of it. And it may be called not only seeing, but feeling or tasting."
Dane Ortlund, commenting on Edwards sermon says "HIs point is that objective, factual, informattion based head knowledge is to be sure vitally necessary for true Christian living and experience. It cannot be ignored. Yet it is inadequate of itself. Christian faith that consists only of facts and not of enjoyment of those facts is not Christian faith. The divine light is an utterly new pleasure in God. It is a matter of the affections, which today we would probably call the emotions, though we must be discerning as we do so." Perhaps this connects to what you say about the "spiritual senses", which Edwards would call "the sense of the heart".
Here's my question...can we just teach orthodoxy and assume that orthopathy (or orthopraxis) will happen (which has been our default mode), or do we have to go beyond that and specifically talk about orthopathy? How do we do this without alienating people or reducing the concept to mere "warm fuzzies"?
I wonder if there is a different word that might fit better than "conservative". What I see is that the "Spock syndrome" manifests itself all over the theological spectrum, from progressive to conservative.
As far as I understand the principles behind membership letters, it's first of all testimony about their faith and involvement, and second,a sign of respect and fellowship between churches. The official form, from a church office standpoint, would be helpful because it would give baptism/ profession dates. But even if you're not sure about an official form, an informal letter could give the same info and express the same sentiments.
So if I hear you correctly, Henry E., you are in favor of times of covenant renewal, as we do see in the OT, but see that those times of renewal should be very strongly, or exclusively, linked to the Lord's Supper. Is that correct?
Pete, good to hear from you. How about this one from the Institutes?
"It now remains to pour into the heart itself what the mind has received. For the Word of God is not received in faith if it flits about at the top of the brain, but when it takes root in the depth of the heart that it might be an invincible defense to withstand and drive off all the strategems of temptation..."
It's my thought that while our tradition is great at Orthodoxy, and pretty good at Orthopraxis, the area where we really lag is the mediating one of Orthopathy...right emotion, right affection, right passion. By this I mean not passing feelings so much as stable defining affections and passions, modelled after Gods own heart, defined by the gospel, which motivate us into orthopraxis. (Orthopathy, I would further say, is the domain of spiritual formation) This issue of Orthopathy is one which our denomination has often struggled with, often minimizing the role of affectivity in the Christian life. I also think it was a tangential but unspoken element in our recent debates concerning third wave pentecostalism.
"when it takes root in the depth of the heart."...A key goal in preaching is changed affections...which also means that the preacher's own affections must be deeply engaged. I don't mean simple bombast, but a heart that is touched and moved by the beauty of Christ. Pathos matters. The puritan William Ames said "Next to the Scriptures, nothing makes a sermon more to pierce, then when it comes out of the inward affection of the heart without any affectation." In other words, if our preaching is not pathetic in one sense, it will be pathetic in another sense.
I appreciate your enthusiasm! Orthopathy as a theological concept (and as a lived reality) is something that I've been interested in for a while. Runyon is one who has talked about it, as has Richard Mouw. Another who has done a great deal of work on the concept (which he terms orthokardia=right heart) is Gregory Clapper, a Methodist theologian. Steven J. Land also investigates the concept well in his book Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Dont get me started!
Prior to the term, but looking at it as a concept, historical figures abound. Abraham Joshua Heschel speaks in his book on the prophets about how prophets "participate in the pathos of God", and says that this "sympathetic union" is perhaps more biblical than an ahistorical mystical union. And of course there is Jonathan Edwards with such quotes as this "as on the one hand there must be light in the understanding, as well as an affected fervent heart, wehre there is heat with out light, there can be nothing divine or heavenly in that heart, so on the other hand, where tehre is a kind of light without heat, a head stored with notion and speculations, with a cold and unaffected heart, there can be nothing divine in that light, that knowledge is no true spiritual kknowledge of divine things."
I prefer to use the terms of affections, passions or sentiments to that of emotions, because there is a deeper grounding in the Christian tradition for these terms. Thomas Dixon in his book "From Passions to Emotions: The Creation of a Secular Psychological Category", shows how these earlier theologically based terms lost ground in the 1800s to the more secular category of emotion. This tended to divide thought/reason and emotion and make their relationship antithetical, a contrast to the more integrated Biblical vision of the heart as the seat of both thought and emotion. In some ways when we use the term "emotions" we have already let the other side define the terms of the debate...
The relationship between feelings and emotions, thats a good one. Transience would be one difference. Feelings are passing sensations, while affections are emotional dispositions that continue over time and are a core part of Christian character/the fruits of the spirit. Maybe feelings are a function of the affections, and as such are affected by the state of the heart. For instance, two people can see someone suffering, the one will "feel" nothing, the other will feel compassion and pain. This would reflect the state of their heart?
John, I would agree that orthopathy would have connections with being born again. I guess I am of the mind that conversion happens in two ways, either like the sting of a bee or the unfolding of a flower. In either case, it is a continuing process through all of life...the catechism says that it is a dying away of the old self and the coming to life of the new...which would also have an affective component. I would put it in the area of sanctification, as the spirit works on our naturally hard hearts and gives us new kingdom desires and affections. The Spirit uses scripture, community, the spiritual disciplines to accomplish this "affective conversion" which is why I would also put orthopathy in connection with "spiritual formation"...what exactly is being formed? I would say a key part of what is being formed is godly affections. We dont want to just be "Christians from the neck up".
Bev, What I meant by that was just that the CRC, at least historically, has been not just a theological community or an ethnic community, but also what I guess you could call an "emotional community". We have a particular emotional stamp, and Pentecostalism tends to have a much different emotional stamp. I think that we have struggled with the movement not only because of specific theological issues but more generally on this basic emotional/emotive level, as it plays itself out in worship, etc...that's all.
John, praise God for what he's doing in your friend!
Pete,To bring the conversation back around to preaching, I think that our own responses kind of reflect the "appreciative inquiry" mode of reflection. There's really two questions...what true preaching of the word is, and what it does, or should do. In one sense pure preaching of the word would probably be defined by the confessions as emphasizing the doctrines of grace, and we could simply add to that careful exegesis, understanding of where it falls in redemptive history, etc...and yet I've sometimes preached sermons like that and they seem to have "fallen from the pulpit like a wingless duck" as one person puts it...so on the other hand preaching is an event that involves speakers and listeners and the whole spiritual circuit board has to be considered. Is your question what it is in itself, or what its desired outcome is?
Dovetailing on what you've posted, the fact that emotions and feelings can be false or misguided is one basic reason why people say "see, we can't trust them", neglecting the fact that thinking processes can also be false or misguided.
Part of it, I think goes back to the question if emotions and feelings are cognitive or non-cognitive, if they are just nonrational biochemical firings that happen to us, or if they are actually a form of thought. Matthew Elliot has a great book called "Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament" where he analyzes the state of the debate and shows that the older view, that emotions are contrary to thought, does not hold up all that well and that many emotion theorists see emotion as cognitive. W Jay Wood who has taught at Calvin, says it this way "emotions and moral virtues are to our cognitive life what rudders are to an airplane...they are part of the thinking apparatus itself. if they don't function properly, our cognitive life doesn't function properly. So whether or not we function intellectually in as complete a way as we generally think desirable hinges on whether our emotional and moral natures are mature."
Rather than putting emotions and feelings above questioning, a cognitive view of emotion does the very opposite. Emotions and feelings can and should be "quizzed", just like any other idea that pops into our heads, to see if they are valid or not. On the flip side, though, they can also be valued and not simply discounted.
Posted in: Ideas for a Pastor's Continuing Education?
Gordon is where I got a DMin but they have a lot of offerings. I would check out their Shoemaker Center or talk with Steve Macchia who works at the Pierce Center for Disciple Building.
Posted in: When Do We Receive the Holy Spirit and What Is the Primary Purpose?
Alex, that's a great question and one that I'm glad you're getting the opportunity to wrestle with. Maybe the first thing that we should look at is defining our terms. What do you mean when you use the phrase "receive the Holy Spirit"? There is, shall we say, a lot of freight in that truck. It's a phrase that not only appears in Scripture but has taken on nuances of meaning from various theological traditions...pentecostalism, etc., as well as specific meanings in more liturgical traditions. So to unload the truck a bit, what's the particular understanding of that phrase that you're wrestling with?
In terms of the primary purpose of the Holy Spirit, that's another important discussion. I guess off the bat I've been helped by Max Ander's illustration of the spotlights that ring the Washington Monument. The spotlights do not draw attention to themselves but to the monument. In the same way the Spirit is "the shy member of the Trinity", tending to draw attention not to himself but to the work and the person of Christ. Christ says that "he will take what is mine and make it known to you".
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Bev,
It is a question of what "kind" of Christ we are presenting, but do you think that it's equally about the *kind of knowledge* of this Christ that we are after? What, after all, is a Biblical view of knowing? It isn't just an abstract knowledge, but a wholistic knowing that engages the whole person. James 2...James writes "you believe that there is one God...Good! Even the demons believe that and shudder".
I think of two sermons of Jonathan Edwards where he talks about the distinction between types of knowing. In the one "True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils", on this verse, he notes that the devil has a very extensive knowledge of the subject of theology, becuase he was educated in the best theological seminary in the universe, the seventh heaven. As one writer puts it "he is well aware of Jesus in his capacity as the savior of humankind and thus aqauinted with the whole plan of redemption. He is well informed of the affairs of the world beyond and a remarkable exegete of the Holy Scriptures" Edwards is riffing here, but he makes his point. "the devil is orthodox, he belives in the true scheme of doctrine, he is no Deist, Socinian, Arian, Pelagian or Antinomian, the articles of his faith are all sound, and in them he is throughly established." But this knowledge burns him, he hates it and is opposed to it.
Contrast this with the other type of knowing that Edwards talks about in "A Divine and Supernatural Light" and a few other places. He says "there is a difference between having an opinion that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of the loviness and beauty of that holiness and grace. There is a difference between having a rational judgement that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness. A man may have the former that knows not how honey tastes, but a man can't have the latter unless he has an idea of the taste of honey in his mind...there are two kinds of knowledge of the things of divinity, speculative and practical, or in other terms, natural and spiritual. The former remains only in the head. No other facutly but the understanding is concerned in it. It consists in having a rational knowledge of the things of religion, without any special illumination of the Spirit of God. The latter rests not entirely in the head, or in the speculative ideas of things, but the heart is concerned in it, and it principally consists in the "sense of the heart". The mere intellect, without the heart, the will or the inclination is not the seat of it. And it may be called not only seeing, but feeling or tasting."
Dane Ortlund, commenting on Edwards sermon says "HIs point is that objective, factual, informattion based head knowledge is to be sure vitally necessary for true Christian living and experience. It cannot be ignored. Yet it is inadequate of itself. Christian faith that consists only of facts and not of enjoyment of those facts is not Christian faith. The divine light is an utterly new pleasure in God. It is a matter of the affections, which today we would probably call the emotions, though we must be discerning as we do so." Perhaps this connects to what you say about the "spiritual senses", which Edwards would call "the sense of the heart".
Here's my question...can we just teach orthodoxy and assume that orthopathy (or orthopraxis) will happen (which has been our default mode), or do we have to go beyond that and specifically talk about orthopathy? How do we do this without alienating people or reducing the concept to mere "warm fuzzies"?
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
I wonder if there is a different word that might fit better than "conservative". What I see is that the "Spock syndrome" manifests itself all over the theological spectrum, from progressive to conservative.
Posted in: Transfer Lapsed Members?
Anton,
As far as I understand the principles behind membership letters, it's first of all testimony about their faith and involvement, and second,a sign of respect and fellowship between churches. The official form, from a church office standpoint, would be helpful because it would give baptism/ profession dates. But even if you're not sure about an official form, an informal letter could give the same info and express the same sentiments.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Jessica,
I first ran across it in a book called "Coffee with Calvin: Daily Devotions" by Donald McKim. It's in Institutes III.ii.36.
Posted in: Post Baptismal Use of Waters of Baptism?
So if I hear you correctly, Henry E., you are in favor of times of covenant renewal, as we do see in the OT, but see that those times of renewal should be very strongly, or exclusively, linked to the Lord's Supper. Is that correct?
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Pete, good to hear from you. How about this one from the Institutes?
"It now remains to pour into the heart itself what the mind has received. For the Word of God is not received in faith if it flits about at the top of the brain, but when it takes root in the depth of the heart that it might be an invincible defense to withstand and drive off all the strategems of temptation..."
It's my thought that while our tradition is great at Orthodoxy, and pretty good at Orthopraxis, the area where we really lag is the mediating one of Orthopathy...right emotion, right affection, right passion. By this I mean not passing feelings so much as stable defining affections and passions, modelled after Gods own heart, defined by the gospel, which motivate us into orthopraxis. (Orthopathy, I would further say, is the domain of spiritual formation) This issue of Orthopathy is one which our denomination has often struggled with, often minimizing the role of affectivity in the Christian life. I also think it was a tangential but unspoken element in our recent debates concerning third wave pentecostalism.
"when it takes root in the depth of the heart."...A key goal in preaching is changed affections...which also means that the preacher's own affections must be deeply engaged. I don't mean simple bombast, but a heart that is touched and moved by the beauty of Christ. Pathos matters. The puritan William Ames said "Next to the Scriptures, nothing makes a sermon more to pierce, then when it comes out of the inward affection of the heart without any affectation." In other words, if our preaching is not pathetic in one sense, it will be pathetic in another sense.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Bev,
I appreciate your enthusiasm! Orthopathy as a theological concept (and as a lived reality) is something that I've been interested in for a while. Runyon is one who has talked about it, as has Richard Mouw. Another who has done a great deal of work on the concept (which he terms orthokardia=right heart) is Gregory Clapper, a Methodist theologian. Steven J. Land also investigates the concept well in his book Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Dont get me started!
Prior to the term, but looking at it as a concept, historical figures abound. Abraham Joshua Heschel speaks in his book on the prophets about how prophets "participate in the pathos of God", and says that this "sympathetic union" is perhaps more biblical than an ahistorical mystical union. And of course there is Jonathan Edwards with such quotes as this "as on the one hand there must be light in the understanding, as well as an affected fervent heart, wehre there is heat with out light, there can be nothing divine or heavenly in that heart, so on the other hand, where tehre is a kind of light without heat, a head stored with notion and speculations, with a cold and unaffected heart, there can be nothing divine in that light, that knowledge is no true spiritual kknowledge of divine things."
I prefer to use the terms of affections, passions or sentiments to that of emotions, because there is a deeper grounding in the Christian tradition for these terms. Thomas Dixon in his book "From Passions to Emotions: The Creation of a Secular Psychological Category", shows how these earlier theologically based terms lost ground in the 1800s to the more secular category of emotion. This tended to divide thought/reason and emotion and make their relationship antithetical, a contrast to the more integrated Biblical vision of the heart as the seat of both thought and emotion. In some ways when we use the term "emotions" we have already let the other side define the terms of the debate...
The relationship between feelings and emotions, thats a good one. Transience would be one difference. Feelings are passing sensations, while affections are emotional dispositions that continue over time and are a core part of Christian character/the fruits of the spirit. Maybe feelings are a function of the affections, and as such are affected by the state of the heart. For instance, two people can see someone suffering, the one will "feel" nothing, the other will feel compassion and pain. This would reflect the state of their heart?
John, I would agree that orthopathy would have connections with being born again. I guess I am of the mind that conversion happens in two ways, either like the sting of a bee or the unfolding of a flower. In either case, it is a continuing process through all of life...the catechism says that it is a dying away of the old self and the coming to life of the new...which would also have an affective component. I would put it in the area of sanctification, as the spirit works on our naturally hard hearts and gives us new kingdom desires and affections. The Spirit uses scripture, community, the spiritual disciplines to accomplish this "affective conversion" which is why I would also put orthopathy in connection with "spiritual formation"...what exactly is being formed? I would say a key part of what is being formed is godly affections. We dont want to just be "Christians from the neck up".
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Bev, What I meant by that was just that the CRC, at least historically, has been not just a theological community or an ethnic community, but also what I guess you could call an "emotional community". We have a particular emotional stamp, and Pentecostalism tends to have a much different emotional stamp. I think that we have struggled with the movement not only because of specific theological issues but more generally on this basic emotional/emotive level, as it plays itself out in worship, etc...that's all.
John, praise God for what he's doing in your friend!
Pete,To bring the conversation back around to preaching, I think that our own responses kind of reflect the "appreciative inquiry" mode of reflection. There's really two questions...what true preaching of the word is, and what it does, or should do. In one sense pure preaching of the word would probably be defined by the confessions as emphasizing the doctrines of grace, and we could simply add to that careful exegesis, understanding of where it falls in redemptive history, etc...and yet I've sometimes preached sermons like that and they seem to have "fallen from the pulpit like a wingless duck" as one person puts it...so on the other hand preaching is an event that involves speakers and listeners and the whole spiritual circuit board has to be considered. Is your question what it is in itself, or what its desired outcome is?
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Pete,
Dovetailing on what you've posted, the fact that emotions and feelings can be false or misguided is one basic reason why people say "see, we can't trust them", neglecting the fact that thinking processes can also be false or misguided.
Part of it, I think goes back to the question if emotions and feelings are cognitive or non-cognitive, if they are just nonrational biochemical firings that happen to us, or if they are actually a form of thought. Matthew Elliot has a great book called "Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament" where he analyzes the state of the debate and shows that the older view, that emotions are contrary to thought, does not hold up all that well and that many emotion theorists see emotion as cognitive. W Jay Wood who has taught at Calvin, says it this way "emotions and moral virtues are to our cognitive life what rudders are to an airplane...they are part of the thinking apparatus itself. if they don't function properly, our cognitive life doesn't function properly. So whether or not we function intellectually in as complete a way as we generally think desirable hinges on whether our emotional and moral natures are mature."
Rather than putting emotions and feelings above questioning, a cognitive view of emotion does the very opposite. Emotions and feelings can and should be "quizzed", just like any other idea that pops into our heads, to see if they are valid or not. On the flip side, though, they can also be valued and not simply discounted.
Posted in: Anyone Have a Communion Liturgy They Use for the Homebound in Their Congregations?
The RCA book of worship has a short "Order for Second Service" that might work well.